Forum participants we have known

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

If we are all imperfect, back in the day when the Watchtower had proofreaders like perhaps you were part of in the writing department, and you made an error like sometimes you actually do here, who would correct your mistake as a proofreader?

I actually wasn't a proofreader. Just a researcher for one (later two) of the writers when he didn't have time to look up everything for himself, especially if it was trivial, or if his source might have been old and he wanted to see if a second source or more up-to-date Bible dictionaries and lexicons had a differing view. Sometimes it was an idea that might have been a cute but unnecessary intro/lead-in, but which Hemingway would have called a "darling" that needed "killing." Also a researcher for the Art Dept where I continued to work but wasn't good at drawing people's faces. But I could pick a font, make calligraphy and could quickly go to a library or the Jewish Museum in NYC and find out what a first century anvil looked like (for example). 

As a first reader of someone's writing you'd see some blatant things. But there was also the passing along of a finished article to a group of brothers on a list who would have to initial that they had read it. One of those brothers was the "editor" who also looked at it for how well the content fit the theme, whether it repeated other info in another article that had just come out in the same or recent issues.

But the actual proofreaders were sisters outside the department who watched for grammar, spelling, and the like. Then it would be typed up in typesetting and a printout sent to a second proofreader who would also see those things but was more attuned to page numbering, paragraph numbering, indexing the right pages, making sure the footnotes pointed to the right place in other publications. Notwithstanding the darlings already killed, they would also kill the widows and orphans and dam the rivers and then reread the text when that was done. Two separate proofreaders is probably the answer to your question about who would correct mistakes of a proofreader.

Widows and orphans (in typesetting) can refer to those words or short lines that hang out by themselves as the last line of a paragraph, or on a page by themselves all alone. Rivers are made from the gaps between words that sometimes line up on three or more adjacent lines, looking like a path through the page, and cause distraction to a reader. 

[BTK59]

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

You have been aware for years that I state I have never banned anyone.

While under your moniker JWI, this is correct. However, you will never convince me otherwise with the link that you and Tom possess with the librarian. It is too obvious due to the electronic signature.

We will continue to pretend that I have no objections to your choice of whom to defend and your reasons for banning someone you've chosen to dislike. But before you deny the word "hate," consider the actions behind it.

34 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

assumed that this meant only a few out of hundreds of my posts have been true. Another insult that I am overwhelmingly a liar almost by default.

BTK insult #8: JWI only posts a very small percentage of truth.

At any rate, I don't think I have to spell out the next 20 or 30 micro-insults from you. They don't even make a difference. I'll continue to speak the truth. But I just wanted you to see why it seemed ridiculous for you to claim that other people insult you (,)and you don't insult others. It seemed you had such an obvious double-standard. (Yes, that's an intentional form of me using echolalia. My own definition, not the same form you will see in a dictionary, but perhaps related.) 

When you personally insult someone subtly, it remains an insult. Yet, continuously portraying oneself as a victim only serves your fan base. Visitors who come here to observe and witness the exchanges can discern for themselves who is authentic and who is merely pretending.

I will not allow myself to be affected by any of your subtle insults, just like I did not let Anna's loud one get to me. It is inevitable that your anger, or even Tom's, may lead to me being banned, but I do not hold any expectations either way. It is a fact that people struggle to control their tempers, yet paradoxically they still wish to be seen as credible witnesses.

It's is what it is!

[JW Insider]

14 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Despite this, we all enjoy a good laugh at posts, particularly those that lack conviction.

Lack of conviction has never been one of my criterion for laughing at a post.

15 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I suppose humor only takes into account our intentions.

 Never thought about it that way. Never intend to, either. LOL. 

18 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Oh! I was unaware that speaking the truth is considered insulting.

Except when someone is speaking the truth about you. 

I certainly didn't feel insulted, but I could easily tell that this was your intention. The problem of course is that you weren't speaking the truth. You were making an unsubstantiated claim based on either a hunch or a narrative necessary to your own view about yourself and others. It's hard for me to believe that, deep down, you even believe that I or Tom might be the Librarian. I am pretty sure you would already have read enough of the Librarian's posts to know this. 

28 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Just a moment ago, you stated that you don't have any objections to disfellowshipping. So, which is it then?

I have no objections to Biblically-supported disfellowshipping. Never have. Never shifted my opinion on that. 

30 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Does this imply that you have a problem with scripture instructing us to "rebuke" our brothers?

Never had a problem with "rebuking" either. I just think that we shouldn't be quick to rebuke brothers in high levels of responsibility. I won't rebuke any members of the Governing Body, for example. I won't rebuke anyone here either, even if I might think the Bible thoroughly disagrees with some of their content. I'll stick to discussing content, and only bring up the qualities and quirks of individuals if I believe there's an interesting enough connection between the person and their content. In most cases I won't know enough about the individual which is why I usually avoid those kinds of topics. 

38 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Is that why you inadvertently linked "elders" and "typos"? I would love to see your response and get my fifth laugh in, lol!

I didn't link them inadvertently. I said that the Bible says we should criticize elders if we have spiritual qualifications. We are therefore responsible to use our gifts or our talents. If I have zero spiritual qualifications I will not criticize an elder. But if I have gardening qualifications I will offer help and suggestions and criticisms about the plantings around the Hall. I will even offer to help with the new assembly hall being built not so far from me. If I have proofreading qualifications I will offer proofreading criticisms as my gift. Whether my qualifications are good or not will only be known by how people respond, and so far, so good. 

[BTK59]

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I actually wasn't a proofreader. Just a researcher for one (later two) of the writers when he didn't have time to look up everything for himself, especially if it was trivial, or if his source might have been old and he wanted to see if a second source or more up-to-date Bible dictionaries and lexicons had a differing view. Sometimes it was an idea that might have been a cute but unnecessary intro/lead-in, but which Hemingway would have called a "darling" that needed "killing."

Sometimes, the writing department requires assistance, and any typos encountered should be corrected. On the other hand, if one decides to contact the Watchtower to suggest an interpretation of a particular passage, that person would need both the necessary credentials and God's blessing. These are two distinct areas of expertise that cannot be attained without the guidance of God's Holy Spirit. Just consider what Jesus said about the Pharisees.

Hemingway, having his own inner struggles, faced numerous challenges due to his literary stature. However, one of his daughters also experienced her fair share of mental turmoil. What happened to her? She committed suicide.

26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

As a first reader of someone's writing you'd see some blatant things. But there was also the passing along of a finished article to a group of brothers on a list who would have to initial that they had read it. One of those brothers was the "editor" who also looked at it for how well the content fit the theme, whether it repeated other info in another article that had just come out in the same or recent issues.

I am well aware of the process and, being aware of our human imperfections, I am also familiar with the concept of distractions. Yet, there is nothing worth criticizing about.

30 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But the actual proofreaders were sisters outside the department who watched for grammar, spelling, and the like. Then it would be typed up in typesetting and a printout sent to a second proofreader who would also see those things but was more attuned to page numbering, paragraph numbering, indexing the right pages, making sure the footnotes pointed to the right place in other publications. Notwithstanding the darlings already killed, they would also kill the widows and orphans and dam the rivers and then reread the text when that was done. Two separate proofreaders is probably the answer to your question about who would correct mistakes of a proofreader.

I have had numerous friends and relatives who served. These witnesses cherish nothing but cherished memories, as they steadfastly refuse to perceive any human imperfections as insurmountable. They gave their utmost during that time, and they continue to strive for excellence to this day.

One of my relatives had a life-changing experience after being sent to Japan from Bethel. This experience inspired them to venture into the textile business. Through the grace of God, the entire family has been immensely blessed, as they now own a multimillion-dollar company. What's more, every male cousin of that part of the family has become an Elder, further exemplifying the values and strength that have contributed to their success through God.

 

[BTK59]

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Lack of conviction has never been one of my criterion for laughing at a post.

This is a matter of personal choice. In many cases, especially when criticism lacks value, it carries a hollow sound.

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Never thought about it that way. Never intend to, either. LOL.

Philosophy traverses a vast and varied path.

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I certainly didn't feel insulted, but I could easily tell that this was your intention. The problem of course is that you weren't speaking the truth.

Who is insulting whom with that comment about "you weren't speaking the truth"? What were you just saying about Anna? It is time to decide where your defense is heading.

Speaking the truth and not being accepted by someone who is deceiving themselves does not qualify a person as an expert. But once again, I notice that you employ subtle insults despite your argument against insults. This is where you lose your credibility.

Instead of focusing on pointing out my faults, why not take the opportunity to address your own shortcomings? By taking this approach, we can work towards meeting each other halfway.

18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Never had a problem with "rebuking" either. I just think that we shouldn't be quick to rebuke brothers in high levels of responsibility. I won't rebuke any members of the Governing Body, for example. I won't rebuke anyone here either, even if I might think the Bible thoroughly disagrees with some of their content.

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that none of us possess the authority to rebuke those whom God has chosen. That task belongs solely to God himself. Secondly, it is crucial to highlight that when George was banned (disfellowshipped), it went beyond mere rebuke. Therefore, let us avoid making sweeping statements, as such a response can be perceived as lacking integrity.

When someone is part of the problem instead of being part of the solution, it is only natural for that person to be hesitant to make corrections of others.

24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I didn't link them inadvertently. I said that the Bible says we should criticize elders if we have spiritual qualifications.

Then, this thought should remain within one's mind, rather than being spoken out loud, as no one here possesses that qualification. That's why I mentioned, what's the purpose of being outspoken about something that cannot be connected.
 

28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Whether my qualifications are good or not will only be known by how people respond, and so far, so good. 

This is second guessing. Where does scripture state an unqualified person has better input than those qualified?

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Who is insulting whom with that comment about "you weren't speaking the truth"?

You just indicated that speaking the truth should not be considered insulting. Yet, now when I speak the truth about something you said, you seem to consider it insulting. That's what I meant about a double-standard. You only mean that when you claim another person is not telling the truth, you say it's not insulting to them. But when I know for a fact that what you are saying isn't true, and I state that true fact, you feel insulted.

That's the other thing to consider about your claim. You can only guess at something and it turns out your guess was wrong. But you claim it's a fact, that you will never believe anything else, and yet you can never and therefore will never be able to provide even a tiny bit of evidence for your false claim. I'm the one who knows for a fact that I am not the Librarian, have never asked the Librarian or anyone else to ban anyone, have never asked Tom to ban anyone (and I doubt he could, the old rooster). And I have never banned anyone and don't even know if I could even if I tried. And I still have no intention of ever trying, except that you did get me curious about whether I have the ability or not. But I guess I'd rather not know so that I can't ever be accused of using such a function. 

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

But once again, I notice that you employ subtle insults despite your argument against insults.

See what I mean? You think me telling the truth is insulting even if subtle. 

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Instead of focusing on pointing out my faults, why not take the opportunity to address your own shortcomings? By taking this approach, we can work towards meeting each other halfway.

Sounds OK. By the way, I never meant to imply that I haven't made others feel insulted. I was only pointing out the ridiculousness of a claim you made about making zero insults and waiting for others to join Anna to be first in some kind of insulting laughter. I was counting your own insults but didn't mean to imply that mine would always remain at zero, only that mine were still zero by the time you had already racked up a few against me.

I know it's true that I can be insulting. Sometimes it feels like the appropriate response to a barrage of insults, and sometimes I feel like it's OK to counter a barrage of insults with just one or two subtle ones. But I'll take that as a mild rebuke. I will try to avoid even the slight ones. Starting now. I hope it doesn't take all the fun out of the forum for me.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that none of us possess the authority to rebuke those whom God has chosen.

True. I tend to only speak about GB members who made a reputation for themselves, left a history of their words and actions, and are no longer alive on earth to be actually physically rebuked by any criticism. But letting the Bible rebuke their actions or their claims should still be a legitimate form of criticism.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Secondly, it is crucial to highlight that when George was banned (disfellowshipped), it went beyond mere rebuke.

I agree.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

When someone is part of the problem instead of being part of the solution, it is only natural for that person to be hesitant to make corrections of others.

That doesn't make sense to me. Did you say it the way you meant to? You say that persons who are part of the problem are hesitant to make corrections of others? I have no problem trying to make corrections of others. But I'd guess that it can work both ways: persons who are part of the problem might also be too quick to make corrections of others.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Then, this thought should remain within one's mind, rather than being spoken out loud, as no one here possesses that qualification.

Are you really saying you think that you personally have no possession of the spiritual qualifications to be able to criticize an elder? Or did you mean no one else does? I've heard criticism from you of elders who have been on this forum: one on the forum in the past, one or two in the present. 

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Where does scripture state an unqualified person has better input than those qualified?

From what I can tell, I think that this question is unrelated to the point or to anything either of us previously said. The closest is probably Luke 16:8,9 but I don't think it applies.

 

 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It makes me wonder, how does negative criticism truly benefit anyone?

And speaking of insults and negative criticism, you have always shown a keen interest in who upvotes and who downvotes others. Even in this very thread you have brought it up more than once. So, I'm sure you are aware that when a person adds a critical downvote with no explanation (no constructive criticism) that this is intended as a not-so-subtle insult. I don't think anyone here really has any remaining doubt about who controls a certain account which once only interacted positively with you and George88, and which only interacted negatively with accounts you and George88 also interacted with negatively. Watch how that account still spams upvotes and downvotes:

These are just the last 10 in a row. As is typical, 100% of the downvotes are unexplained downvotes of my posts, and 100% of the upvotes are for you, BTK59. Previously, as expected, all the upvotes were shared between BTK59 and George88.

[BTK59]

31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And speaking of insults and negative criticism, you have always shown a keen interest in who upvotes and who downvotes others.

What is the reason behind your insistence on having these games? Is this criticism stemming from the wave of "upvotes" you received from comfortmypeople, which you conveniently removed to justify your unwarranted excuse to criticize?

It's been 10 years, why not behave in a manner consistent with adulthood.

 

 

[BTK59]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You just indicated that speaking the truth should not be considered insulting. Yet, now when I speak the truth about something you said, you seem to consider it insulting.

Your interpretation and evasion are not mine. If someone is faced with the truth, they should not feel offended by it. However, due to human nature and our imperfections, many people who do not wish to hear the truth often take offense.

There is a notable distinction between merely claiming to speak the truth through a fabricated story and genuinely believing in it. In such cases, it is unjust to perceive the criticisms and insults of such individuals as valid.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

See what I mean? You think me telling the truth is insulting even if subtle. 

I understand the content that I am reading. Should you have any reservations about your own written work, we can apply the concept of "proofreading" to address them.

You don't need to seek approval for your actions or behavior in order to elicit sympathy from others. It won't work with me, and you're well aware of that.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Sounds OK. By the way, I never meant to imply that I haven't made others feel insulted. I was only pointing out the ridiculousness of a claim you made about making zero insults and waiting for others to join Anna to be first in some kind of insulting laughter. I was counting your own insults but didn't mean to imply that mine would always remain at zero, only that mine were still zero by the time you had already racked up a few against me.

This is a clear example of your baseless accusation against me. What I have actually asserted, and what Tom disagrees with, is that if someone insults me, I should have the right to respond in kind.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I know it's true that I can be insulting. Sometimes it feels like the appropriate response to a barrage of insults, and sometimes I feel like it's OK to counter a barrage of insults with just one or two subtle ones. But I'll take that as a mild rebuke. I will try to avoid even the slight ones. Starting now. I hope it doesn't take all the fun out of the forum for me.

Every day, we all insult God by pretending to be something we are not. The real question is, where is George? It appears that some people want to have the best of both worlds. This is a disingenuous framework.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

rue. I tend to only speak about GB members who made a reputation for themselves, left a history of their words and actions, and are no longer alive on earth to be actually physically rebuked by any criticism. But letting the Bible rebuke their actions or their claims should still be a legitimate form of criticism.

We are aware that no one here is authorized to speak negatively about brothers, as it would be unchristian. However, there is a distinction when those brothers behave as if they are part of this world. I have not witnessed the GB behaving in such a manner. On the contrary, they live an exemplary life to the best of their imperfect ability. Therefore, any decision regarding the Watchtower GB will come from God, and the same applies to the Eldership arrangement. Criticisms of this nature should be kept to oneself and not expressed in public.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Are you really saying you think that you personally have no possession of the spiritual qualifications to be able to criticize an elder? Or did you mean no one else does? I've heard criticism from you of elders who have been on this forum: one on the forum in the past, one or two in the present. 

In my view, I believe in it, but those who oppose the truth do not. As a result, that kind of criticism reflects back on the person providing it, highlighting their own shortcomings. Similar to how the Pharisees were not justified in criticizing Jesus, which you appear to suggest should be permissible, they had no right to challenge the will of God. This is why Paul emphasized "respecting" authority. The authority that originates from God is sacred and not to be criticized by mere mortals.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

From what I can tell, I think that this question is unrelated to the point or to anything either of us previously said. The closest is probably Luke 16:8,9 but I don't think it applies.

I completely agree with you. Your analogy is quite unrelated in several aspects, and it may not resonate with the public.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

What is the reason behind your insistence on having these games? Is this criticism stemming from the wave of "upvotes" you received from comfortmypeople, which you conveniently removed to justify your unwarranted excuse to criticize?

Funny you should mention that. About 45 minutes earlier, 9 of my posts in this topic were upvoted by Comfortmypeople. I immediately thought: "Uh-oh, that has always made you react. I wonder if it will be a slew of downvotes for me or a slew of upvotes for you." This has happened so many times before that it was quite predictable. That's why I watched for it.

I didn't remove anything though. I went to the Alphonse profile to see the Alphonse activity. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/20363-alphonse/ You can still go to the comfortmypeople profile to see his activity: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/10944-comfortmypeople/

Nothing was ever removed. But voting activity disappears from the profile after a short time. I don't know for how long those links will display voting activity, but they will always show regular posting activity. 

BTW, the unfounded and false claim that I had conveniently removed something was insulting. Downvotes without an explanation are also intended to be insulting. I don't feel insulted however because the lack of an explanation just shows that the downvoter likely has no real reasons to back up the negative criticism. Many people will see that the lack of reasons for a downvote is effectively a form of ad-hominem attack which usually strengthens the point being downvoted rather than weakening it. So rather than be insulted, I can just thank Alphonse for strengthening the point I was making.

[ComfortMyPeople]

18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Funny you should mention that. About 45 minutes earlier, 9 of my posts in this topic were upvoted by Comfortmypeople. I immediately thought: "Uh-oh, that has always made you react. I wonder if it will be a slew of downvotes for me or a slew of upvotes for you." This has happened so many times before that it was quite predictable. That's why I watched for it.

 

Sorry, I upvoted again!!

[BTK59]

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

unny you should mention that. About 45 minutes earlier, 9 of my posts in this topic were upvoted by Comfortmypeople. I immediately thought: "Uh-oh, that has always made you react. I wonder if it will be a slew of downvotes for me or a slew of upvotes for you." This has happened so many times before that it was quite predictable. That's why I watched for it.

This assumption would be inaccurate, but I believe I also have a fan base who is connected to thousands through the vote of a single person.I appreciate you bringing up your perspective on entrapment.

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I didn't remove anything though. I went to the Alphonse profile to see the Alphonse activity. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/20363-alphonse/ You can still go to the comfortmypeople profile to see his activity: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/10944-comfortmypeople/

It seems that someone had to do it, as the list of upvotes for "comfortmypeople" was there, but now it has disappeared. It's truly perplexing how those with moderator privileges can carry out certain actions and then try to defend themselves or others.

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Nothing was ever removed. But voting activity disappears from the profile after a short time. I don't know for how long those links will display voting activity, but they will always show posting activity. 

Repeating oneself is unnecessary. The stronger the denial, the more it may appear to indicate guilt.

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

BTW, the unfounded and false claim that I had conveniently removed something was insulting. Downvotes without an explanation are also intended to be insulting. I don't feel insulted however because the lack of an explanation just shows that the downvoter likely has no real reasons to back up the negative criticism. Many people will see that the lack of reasons for a downvote is effectively a form of ad-hominem attack which usually strengthens the point being downvoted rather than weakening it. So rather than be insulted, I can just thank Alphonse for strengthening the point I was making.

Are you implying that you refuse to accept the truth despite people's votes? Will you now remove the silent person who expresses their opinion through negative votes while you have resorted to ad-hominem attacks and exhibit clear double standards? Why do you persist in defending your unethical behavior by silencing those who expose your lies?

Has that stopped anyone from exposing you? Stop getting angry at the truth.